Why no school shooter thread?

posted by like_that

The technology is going to get better is my point.  I'm interested in how they will flag these people down, when all they have to say is they have a 3D printer.  It's much easier to connect the dots on bomb making vs how a 3D printer is going to be used.

A world where we might have to worry about a heavily motivated killer downloading 3-D printer blueprints, purchasing a 3-D printer and manufacturing a firearm is much more desirable than a world where a snowflake can waltz into Daddy's shed on a whim and commit mass murder with ease. 

posted by justincredible

I agree it's a poor argument. Rights are not dependent on the actions of other people.

Your second sentence is actually close to the right argument - it's not about it the right being "dependent" on the actions of other people - it's that fundamental rights are not unlimited in a commonwealth and they may be regulated with a due process of law when the commonwealth has a compelling interest for doing so. 

So it's not about other people's behavior - it's that the libertarian denies the compelling common interest as overriding even the slightest burden on a fundamental right. Even if we know we could reduce suicide, mass killing and unnecessary gun deaths (which we can) - that doesn't matter because my right to self-defense and thereby my right to keep and bear a firearm in furtherance of that natural right is wholly unlimited.

However, that is only true in the state of nature and not in a commonwealth like ours where burdens may be justified with a due process of law. However, libertarians often recognize compelling common interests e.g. the interest in imprisoning murderers. Do you believe that it is morally acceptable the state to take away the liberty of a citizen of a commonwealth who murders other citizens of the common wealth?

posted by like_that

I mentioned this months ago, but 3D printers will change the game on this.  Good  luck regulating that.

It's already possible to make guns at home. But guess what criminals are not completely irrational and there number of crimes committed by home made AK's aren't a consistent problem that shocks the national conscience. The clear and present danger is any yahoo getting any gun he wants with relative ease causing mass moral and economic carnage with nobody in the chain of this commerce bearing any of the costs of said carnage.

posted by FatHobbit

My issue with more laws is when the new laws would not have prevented the crime. In the case of the Connecticut shooter his mother passed every background check and lived in a very restrictive state. He killed her and took her ar-15. So the solution some come up with is that I need a background check? That wouldn't have prevented the crime. The Texas shooter used his father's shotgun and pistol. He was not old enough to buy a gun. What new law would have stopped that. 

Another issue I have with background checks is that the there is currently no gun registration. Even if the govt wants to ban them, they don't know where they are. If Donald Trump decides tomorrow that he wants to collect all the ar-15s I'm happy he doesn't have a list and I'm not about to provide one for him. 

 

And what I find fascinating is that the people who make this argument when it comes to guns - routinely advocate for more and more laws in other areas of public policy e.g. immigration, national security, abortion, drugs, voter I.D., you name it.

This argument goes both ways. People on both sides use the same arguments when arguing for something they want

I agree "background checks" are an incomplete answer. I believe in licensing and registration that CCW holders go through with standards of conduct/due care that must be exercised by all the market actors in the chain of commerce as I believe that will let the free market largely solve the problem. 

If guns were regulated like securities and gun owners were regulated like my first amendment rights to free expression are when I engage in the trade of providing advice regarding securities and engage in the trade of practicing law the market solves a lot of it because people don't want to lose their license to keep and bear arms just like I don't want to lose my license to engage in the free expression of practicing law/providing advice with regard to securities. 

So to answer your question - I agree that prohibition or simply "background checks" would be inadequate. I do have faith that a licensing and registration regime where the local sheriff could show up unannounced and take your firearms and find you if they're not stored safely from the mentally incompetent or snowflake son would create market pressures that have been effective in other markets. 

But that's just my opinion - I'm sure others would say that there'd still be gun crime - and OF COURSE there would be. There is still securities fraud and legal malpractice but we're trying to find a balance here and under the current regime there is no balance and the kids getting shot with ever increasing frequency might not be so against using the ATF to round up guns like ICE is currently rounding up illegal immigrants. 

posted by O-Trap

Not really.  It's an argument against redundant laws or unrelated laws.  Not necessarily against laws themselves.

Though I'd say it's worth asking: Are laws the only way in which we attempt to change our society for the better, real or perceived?  Should they be?
 

posted by BoatShoes

And what I find fascinating is that the people who make this argument when it comes to guns - routinely advocate for more and more laws in other areas of public policy e.g. immigration, national security, abortion, drugs, voter I.D., you name it.

This is fair.  The hypocrisy of a man crying over extra regulations on firearms when he would turn around and bitch about two men who touch peckers wanting to be married is ... well ... palpable.
 

posted by BoatShoes

There has not been a St. Valentine's Day massacre with Tommy Guns since they were made illegal. Laws work because the free market works and motivated criminals are not totally free from rationality. If the costs are high and there are barriers to opportunity they'll try to use vans instead of guns and you can't drive a van into a school full of children. 

San Bernadino in 2015.  That shooting had double the casualties of the St. Valentine's Day massacre, and it was with fully automatic weapons.

If someone wants one, they can find one, make one, or convert one.

Incorrect. The San Bernadino Masscare was not executed with a fully automatic weapon. They used semi-automatic weapons and may have tried to modify them to make them fire like an automatic (Maybe with a bump stock?)

https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/san-bernardino-shooting/san-bernardino-massacre-suspects-appear-have-been-radicalized-n473261

hey appeared to have tried to modify one of the rifles to be fully automatic, a senior law enforcement source told NBC News on Thursday. The modification failed, the source said.

So again - no fully automatic weapon used following the wholesale ban. In any case, would it even be a good argument if there was only one in the last half a century when they would be out-numbered by like 90% by semi-autos?? Maybe in libertarian fantasy-land where regulation must never work because really regulation is immoral! 

Please - find me some shootings using fully automatic sub-machine guns after the national firearms act - I'm interested. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_San_Bernardino_attack

posted by BoatShoes

It is desirable from a public policy perspective for motivated criminals having to resort to unlicensed and unregistered milling of their firearms from 3-D printing machines as opposed to waltzing into Daddy's shed and grabbing carelessly stored firearms without consequence for Daddy. 

The number of crimes prevented by others using "carelessly stored firearms" dwarf the number used in crimes. Not even close.

posted by BoatShoes

Why are you so sure?

 

 

 

We already have data that proves otherwise.  Tell me why Japan's suicide rate is so high.  Thanks.   If someone has gotten to the point where they have convinced to kill his/herself, access/non-access to a gun isn't going prevent it. 

posted by BoatShoes

A world where we might have to worry about a heavily motivated killer downloading 3-D printer blueprints, purchasing a 3-D printer and manufacturing a firearm is much more desirable than a world where a snowflake can waltz into Daddy's shed on a whim and commit mass murder with ease. 

 

1. LOL, no it is not.

2. The whole point is all of these dumbass "common sense" gun law and gun confiscation fetishes will be obsolete once 3D printer technology gets better. 

3. I am not worried about either and I live in a city.  We are living in the safest era in the history of the world in a otherwise very safe country.  Try going a pair.

4. I still see no justification to punish the mass majority of our country, because we have a small size of people who commit evil acts.

5. It still doesn't change the fact that time and time again "common sense" laws and banning guns do not work.  Despite data agreeing with this statement, we have yahoos like you who still get their panties in a bunch and create arguments out of their ass (i.e. your argument regarding the purpose of the 2A and suicides).

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/a-new-video-game-simulated-school-shootings-after-outcry-it-got-taken-down/ar-AAy0ZVF?li=AAnZ9Ug

Glad it got taken down. Really sick idea for a game.

Why would you think a 3d printer that can manufacture a gun will ever be affordable to the everyday person? You realize costs of CNC's have only gone up, not down. These machines will be made for gun manufacturers who can afford them to produce them. Not jim bob in his basement. You'll be lucky if one is ever cheaper than $500k lol.It's a cool fantasy I guess, but it's strictly that.

posted by ppaw1999

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/a-new-video-game-simulated-school-shootings-after-outcry-it-got-taken-down/ar-AAy0ZVF?li=AAnZ9Ug

Glad it got taken down. Really sick idea for a game.

One thing I've said for a long time is that the media holds a major blame for a lot of this stuff. They sensationalize it, basically saying "go ahead and do it....we'll make you famous." Shit, within a week after 9-11 happened, we were seeing "how to" videos on how to hijack a plane. Now the video game industry is pushing this crap?

posted by kizer permanente

Why would you think a computer  will ever be affordable to the everyday person? You realize costs of computers  have only gone up, not down. These machines will be made for  manufacturers who can afford them to produce them. Not jim bob in his basement. You'll be lucky if one is ever cheaper than $500k lol. It's a cool fantasy I guess, but it's strictly that.

FIFY to show how dumb this logic is. 

Also, everything I have read is they are getting cheaper.  You can buy a 3D printer for $1K, $500, $300.  Granted they can't produce a gun yet,  but you are being very naive to think 3D printers won't drop to a price range low enough for every "jim bob" to have.  The average household doesn't need a mass production printer.  All it takes is one print job to get a gun in the hands of the wrong person.  Wait until the material gets cheaper.  It is only a matter of time and I would be willing to bet within 10 years it will reach a price point, that average consumers like us could consider it. 

Even if it would take $500K, despite your implication that only "jim bobs" own guns, the majority of gun crime comes from gangs (even though several posters here want to ignore this inconvenient fact).  I think it's safe to say most gangs have disposable income to work with.  At your price point of $500K, I think most gangs would be more than happy to pay that price to never worry about smuggling guns illegally ever again.

You're comparing a computer which is strictly electronics to a milling capable product.... and you think someone else has bad logic lol 
You.re right, circuitry based electronics will always get cheaper. This is not that. 

You're comparing a printer for a grand that can make a plastic tie clip, to a printer that is laser machining gears, cylinders, etc. It's not even in the same realm. The components are not the same. the technology is not the same. It's akin to saying well I bought a wood lathe at harbor freight.. I ought to be able to turn my rotors on my car.. they're both lathes after all right? That's what I'm trying to get it. A 3d printer isn't a 3d printer isn't a 3d printer. A $1000 printer will never be able to manufacture a gun. It doesn't, and can't have the capability. Maybe a polymer look a like.. but what's going to be useful for that?  Something that will have the ability to precision laser machine and mill will always be way too expensive for you and I to buy. 

You do have a valid point about gangs and other cartels and what not. But just the idea that the average gun fanatic is going to manufacture one in his basement is what I'm disputing. 

posted by kizer permanente

You're comparing a computer which is strictly electronics to a milling capable product.... and you think someone else has bad logic lol 
You.re right, circuitry based electronics will always get cheaper. This is not that. 

You're comparing a printer for a grand that can make a plastic tie clip, to a printer that is laser machining gears, cylinders, etc. It's not even in the same realm. The components are not the same. the technology is not the same. It's akin to saying well I bought a wood lathe at harbor freight.. I ought to be able to turn my rotors on my car.. they're both lathes after all right? That's what I'm trying to get it. A 3d printer isn't a 3d printer isn't a 3d printer. A $1000 printer will never be able to manufacture a gun. It doesn't, and can't have the capability. Maybe a polymer look a like.. but what's going to be useful for that?  Something that will have the ability to precision laser machine and mill will always be way too expensive for you and I to buy. 

You do have a valid point about gangs and other cartels and what not. But just the idea that the average gun fanatic is going to manufacture one in his basement is what I'm disputing. 

You can look at many products/services that started as a premium and has made it's way to an average household.  If the market is there it happens.  It might not fathomable to you now, but you most likely will feel dumb in the future. Do you want to make a 10 year bet it will happen with 3D printers lol?

Anyway, whether  you think 3D printers will be in the hands of an average household or not, that wasn't the big picture of my point.  The big picture is gun grabbers can cry for more laws and bans, but more obstacles will be created to get in the way of their gun free fetish.

posted by kizer permanente A $1000 printer will never be able to manufacture a gun. It doesn't, and can't have the capability. Maybe a polymer look a like.. but what's going to be useful for that?  Something that will have the ability to precision laser machine and mill will always be way too expensive for you and I to buy. 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberator_(gun)

posted by kizer permanente

You're comparing a computer which is strictly electronics to a milling capable product.... and you think someone else has bad logic lol 
You.re right, circuitry based electronics will always get cheaper. This is not that. 

You're comparing a printer for a grand that can make a plastic tie clip, to a printer that is laser machining gears, cylinders, etc. It's not even in the same realm. The components are not the same. the technology is not the same. It's akin to saying well I bought a wood lathe at harbor freight.. I ought to be able to turn my rotors on my car.. they're both lathes after all right? That's what I'm trying to get it. A 3d printer isn't a 3d printer isn't a 3d printer. A $1000 printer will never be able to manufacture a gun. It doesn't, and can't have the capability. Maybe a polymer look a like.. but what's going to be useful for that?  Something that will have the ability to precision laser machine and mill will always be way too expensive for you and I to buy. 

You do have a valid point about gangs and other cartels and what not. But just the idea that the average gun fanatic is going to manufacture one in his basement is what I'm disputing. 

Proof you don't know the technology behind 3D pringint. Most 3D printers use deposition technology like Fusion Deposition Models, CVD (chemical vapor deposition), etc. They basically add a layer at a time. They do NOT etch/cut/laser out the part like a CNC does.

Think of sliced bread but in reverse. You cook a slice of bread at a time then stack them on top each other to make a loaf.

The only type of 3D printing that even uses a laser is one that only uses a laser to sinter a powder turning it into a solid layer. No 3D printer is precision layer cutting like a CNC does.

I actually have worked on and been published years ago on some of these physical processes (chemical vapor deposition and plasma vapor deposition primarily), so I understand the science behind 3D printers. 3D printers and CNC machining are not even close to similar technologies.

Funny thing is, back when we were doing the initial science/math modeling we figured this technology would be HUGE in the formation of miniature microchips...and it has been. We never really thought of the idea of 3D printing.

Also, before you say "but you can't deposit things like metal..." while most 3D printers now only work for polymer materials, when we were doing this in a lab back 15 years ago we were doing it with highly conductive metals like gold, silver, and copper to show its applications in the miniature microchip world.

So yes, metal can be deposited 1 layer at a time, just not as "easy" on the large scale (firearms) yet.

posted by jmog

Proof you don't know the technology behind 3D pringint. Most 3D printers use deposition technology like Fusion Deposition Models, CVD (chemical vapor deposition), etc. They basically add a layer at a time. They do NOT etch/cut/laser out the part like a CNC does.

 

Think of sliced bread but in reverse. You cook a slice of bread at a time then stack them on top each other to make a loaf.

 

The only type of 3D printing that even uses a laser is one that only uses a laser to sinter a powder turning it into a solid layer. No 3D printer is precision layer cutting like a CNC does.

 

I actually have worked on and been published years ago on some of these physical processes (chemical vapor deposition and plasma vapor deposition primarily), so I understand the science behind 3D printers. 3D printers and CNC machining are not even close to similar technologies.

Funny thing is, back when we were doing the initial science/math modeling we figured this technology would be HUGE in the formation of miniature microchips...and it has been. We never really thought of the idea of 3D printing.

 

Also, before you say "but you can't deposit things like metal..." while most 3D printers now only work for polymer materials, when we were doing this in a lab back 15 years ago we were doing it with highly conductive metals like gold, silver, and copper to show its applications in the miniature microchip world.

 

So yes, metal can be deposited 1 layer at a time, just not as "easy" on the large scale (firearms) yet.

 

You might be right that most 3d printers the average person will buy isn't using laser to cut.. but I wouldn't really call that an accurate statement overall. We have some 3d printers at work and they vary per application. I can tell you the 3d printers we use for metal and polymers aren't the same machines. Any application we use for steel is using laser. And it's strictly for testing purposes. Anything precision we still machine with a cnc.

also.. you sound like you have a pretty cool job lol. Is it all research?

posted by kizer permanente

You might be right that most 3d printers the average person will buy isn't using laser to cut.. but I wouldn't really call that an accurate statement overall. We have some 3d printers at work and they vary per application. I can tell you the 3d printers we use for metal and polymers aren't the same machines. Any application we use for steel is using laser. And it's strictly for testing purposes. Anything precision we still machine with a cnc.

The 3D printers that use a laser are not using the laser to mill/cut like a CNC, they are using the laser to heat the material up inside the printer to a "plasma" state (not gas, not liquid) and then it can be deposited on the substrate (sorry, terms we used back when I was doing this in a lab).

And you are correct, 3D printers for polymers are different than 3D printers for metals. Typically (going off memory so I can be wrong) the 3D printers that deposit metal use lasers to heat up the metal composite powder that was deposited to cure/cook out the non-metalic part of the "print". They use the Fusion Deposition Process (not much different than CVD and PVD that I mentioned above) to do the original deposition of the composite powder.

Again, CNC and 3D printers are vastly different technologies and don't even compare to each other. Just because they both contain a "laser" doesn't mean they can be compared to the cost of the technology being lowered over the years.

A CNC takes a full piece of material and cuts away the parts that you don't want anymore to get down to what your part is. A 3D printer starts with nothing and builds it up layer by layer.

no ones arguing that fact. I'm saying for steel applications we use a DMLS printer. And its not like the $1000 one you can buy and put in your office. I'm not sure what you're disputing?

nevermind.. You were educating me on the process. You're right.. I have no idea how they work. I'm just an electrician whose had exposure to them. So I do appreciate the info.